Monday, October 31, 2011

So, it now comes out from (dubious) sources that Herman Cain was "accused of sexual harassment" back in the '90's.

To liberals, that can only mean Cain is a Clinton-esque whoremonger. But what does it REALLY mean?

First, he was ACCUSED. He was not found guilty of anything. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. As they say, you can indict a ham sandwich.

Second, it was supposedly "sexual harassment." What, exactly, constitutes sexual harassment? It all depends on who is complaining. As a man, I have had to ask women out on dates - it rarely works the other way around. But if you ask a lady on a date and she happens to hate men, she can accuse you of sexual harassment.

And if a man makes any kind of a pass at a woman, which is how nature intends for folks to get together, it could be construed as sexual harassment. And whatever you do, don't flirt with a lesbian - you'd be begging for a charge of harassment.

Of course, none of those things constitute sexual harassment. But the charge or allegation is an easy way to extort money from a hapless victim like Cain. When a wealthy person is hit with such allegations, even if there is no basis for them, it is simply easier and cheaper to pay off with a settlement than to spend a bundle fighting the bogus charges in court.

So, being accused means nothing. Allegations that were never substantiated mean nothing. Being accused of sexual harassment by man-haters or women looking for easy money is nothing. And paying a settlement in order to put an end to bogus charges means nothing.

So, what have liberal pundits got with this "sexual harassment" story?

Nothing. But liberals will eat it up like ice cream, and assume every dirty thing their sewer minds can conceive.

Strange, though. Liberals are screaming about Cain being a "sexual predator" because of an allegation of mere harassment, and unfit for office, but those same liberals had no problem when Clinton was actually caught and found guilty of an affair with Lewinski.

The difference - Cain was only accused, and it was only "harassment", but unfortunately for him he also happens to be a black conservative - and liberals cannot tolerate black conservatives or female conservatives. They strike at the very heart of their base. And THAT is Cain's real "crime".

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Michael McAuliff, a very far left liberal who writes for Huffington Post put forth a laughable story today that concerns the growing call for more Americans to "pay a fair share". Many conservatives feel it is an obligation for any working American to pay at least a little something in income taxes, for several reasons. The biggest reason, of course, it to broaden the tax base to reduce the deficit. But it also gets the 47% who pay ZERO taxes to have skin in the game, and that is extremely important.

You see, liberals want more than 50% of Americans to NOT have skin in the game, because if they pay no taxes, they will always favor higher taxes on others and more government benefits for themselves. This empowers liberals, and gets them elected. Look at it this way - if someone is feeding you, housing you and providing you with free medical care, are you going to vote AGAINST them? Of course not. So Democrats are determined to get "dependent" Americans past the 50% point, to insure they will always retain power.

Conservatives, on the other hand, realize that making people dependent upon government only feeds the government at the expense of personal liberty. For example, if the government provides you with food, that gives them the right to determine what you can and cannot eat, if they so choose.

By making every American pay at least some income tax, every American becomes an interested stewart of tax revenues - we all have an interest in our taxes being used wisely, and not wasted. If you do not pay taxes, you just don't care if they are wasted.

So, here are some of McAuliff's "points" in his story, and my uptake on each...my comments are in bold italics:

"It's most often expressed in the growing complaint that about half the nation's households pay no federal income tax -- an accurate figure that varies from 46 percent to 51 percent, depending on which set of statistics are being used."

[REPLY] McAuliff admits that nearly half of all Americans pay no taxes, but goes on to claim that those who pay no taxes are "the poor" (see below). Seems to me that "the poor" do not constitute 50% of Americans.

"It also ignores the fact that the half who pay no federal income tax do pay sales taxes, federal payroll taxes, state and local taxes, and -- if they own a home -- property taxes."

[REPLY] I see. Although they are "the poor" according to liberals, they obviously earn enough to buy stuff, and many even own homes. That does not sound like "poor" to me. In fact, government statistics show that the majority of the lowest income families in America own TV's, computers, cellphones and even iPads. Pardon me for saying so, but America's "poor" are actually wealthy by the standards of most of the world, where "poor" actually means poor.

"Hatch and Cornyn were opposing a nonbinding Democratic resolution that would have done nothing more than declare that the wealthy should share the burden for digging the country out of its economic ditch and reducing the deficit. Yet they were hardly alone in the pushback against the poor."

[REPLY] Yes, Republicans oppose taxing the wealthy even more, for several reasons. 1) if you take EVERY DOLLAR on income from the wealthy, it would not have much impact on the deficit; 2) money taken from those who we depend upon for our products, services, product development and jobs is money that cannot be used for those things; 3) the top 1% of earners already pay 40% of all taxes, so I don't want to hear the BS mantra about "paying a fair share"; and 4) giving the government MORE money to waste only insures they WILL waste more, putting us in a deeper hole.

"Advocates for a progressive tax system hear in Sessions' words a return to anti-welfare arguments that, while they were ultimately proved to be false, nevertheless had impact."

[REPLY] The "progressive tax system" was actually a violation of the Constitution until the turn of the 20th century when a progressive President and Congress pushed through a Constitutional amendment to change it to a progressive system - the first socialist step to destroy "home rule" - government by the people. And that is when America's troubles began. But McAuliff's absurd assertion that "anti-welfare arguments" were "proved to be false" is, itself, a falsehood (a lie). The Gingrich tax reform plan of 1996, which was "anti-welfare", resulted in more people working than ever before, and greater tax revenues because of it. So, anti-welfare arguments actually were proven to work.

And that's the real point here. McAuliff and his Democrat/liberal/progressive/socialist buddies want everyone to be on welfare of one kind or another, because that empowers government. And that is what socialists need if they are to succeed. As long as the people run government, socialists cannot win. Socialism is built upon the premise that government needs to control the people, not vice versa. And that is as un-American as it gets, because we are founded as a government OF the People, BY the People and FOR the People.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

In Florida, a judge has decided it is OK to use Sharia Law rather than Constitutional law when dealing with Muslims in America.

Um - NO!

Every judge is required, upon accepting office, to swear to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this land. And every citizen is required to abide by those laws. As long as those muslims are living in America, they are subject to AMERICAN law, derived from the Constitution of the United States.

Moreover, there is a specific Amendment in the Constitution that states all people will be treated equally under the law. That means the use of Sharia Law in any American court is illegal and unconstitutional - you cannot use one law for John and other for Muhammad and yet another for Jose. Remember - Sharia Law makes it legal to murder someone - even your own child - for violating certain laws of Sharia. Even in America some muslims have committed murder under "honor killing". Should we use Sharia law for them, and set them free? Not!

I say it over and over - whenever any judge chooses to ignore, or thwart the Constitution they are violating their sworn oath of office, and should therefore immediately and without recourse be forced to resign their office. No exceptions.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Get a load of this, folks. Talk about liberal activist judges trying to rewrite the Constitution to rob us of our liberties:

A Wisconsin judge has ruled that Americans do not have a fundamental right to drink milk from their own cow, nor do they have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.

Circuit Court Judge Patrick Fiedler ruled that the plaintiffs do not have any Constitutional rights to own a dairy cow, consume milk from their own cow, board a cow at the farm of another farmer, or produce and consume the foods of their choice.

“This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one’s choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides of the issue,” the judge wrote.

In other words, according to this robed moron, if certain people (PETA) pose alternate arguments to the eating of meat, the government may prevent you from eating meat.

It is worthwhile to note: Mosanto (a chemical company) produces a chemical hormone treatment for milk. They obviously do not want anyone to have access to milk that does not have thier poison in it. As it turns out, this judge resigned from the bench shortly after making this decision, and took a high-paying job with - guess who? Yep - Monsanto.

Folks, it is time we said, "ENOUGH". We need to get rid of every activist judge who thinks he is God, and rules to overturn our human rights. Since when was it NOT a human right to raise our own food, or eat what we choose?

I still say we should let illegal immigrants stay in America provided we can deport all the liberals in their stead. The illegals are, by and large, more useful, and they are SEEKING freedom, and not seeking to DESTROY it

Monday, October 24, 2011

The Washington Post did a hit piece on Tim Allen's new sitcom, "Last Man Standing." They paint him as homophobic, xenophobic and every other kind of phobic simply because he is portrayed as a man, and not the typical wussified moron that liberals like to see featured on TV and film.

That tells you more about the Washington Post and liberal ideals than it does about "Last Man Standing."

I also found it rather enlightening that they closed the COMMENTS section after only 11 comments were posted. I guess they did not appreciate that MOSTY of America still thinks a man should be a man. That we need more "John Wayne" types and far fewer "Yes, Dear" types that carry handbags and act more effeminate than Mae West.

I don't know if Tim's show is any good or not. But I do know that men should be men, and need not apologize for it to a bunch of wussie liberals.

All the while the "Arab Spring" riots tore apart Egypt, Tunisia and now even Libya, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other liberals were proclaiming the beginning of a new, democratic Middle East. They rooted for them - even assisted them.

Meanwhile, most conservatives were more than just leery - we strongly suspected it would turn out badly, with less democracy and more Sharia Law, enforced by our enemies.

It now comes to light that Tunisia now claims an "Islamist victory". In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood (a terrorist organization) is taking control as Christian churches are sacked. And Sharia Law is being instituted. And in Libya, the new "controllers" are already showing signs of becoming another Islamic, Sharia state.

Well, Mr President, it's not like you were not warned. But in your naivete and ignorance, you just had to give aid and comfort to the enemy, believing that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Only fools and blind idealogues believe that crud, Mr President. Or maybe you "forgot" that during the Russian incursion into Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was the "enemy of our enemy", and we provided HIM with arms and training that he eventually used against America.

And now the president and the liberals are supporting our own "Arab Spring" with the Occupy Wall Street hooligans and socialists.

All the political pundits are concentrating on the "flavors of the month" in the Republican race for president. To them, there is only Romney, Perry and Cain. That's because each has had a "honeymoon period" where they were the "new" thing in the race, and their poll numbers soared. Until the folks got to know them.

As you can easily see, Cain's numbers are falling because he seems to flounder on issues like abortion and foreign policy. Perry's popularity is taking a huge hit because of his stance on immigration and the HPV vaccine mandate. That leaves Romney.

The problem with Romney is that his numbers do not change, even as the others go down in flames. This is because most Republicans are not happy with Romney, never have been and never will be, thanks to his ultra-moderate positions and flip-flopping. RomneyCare is too much like ObamaCare

Meanwhile, all the pundits seems to be overlooking that Gingrich is slowly, steadily gaining in the polls. He picks up many of those who are abandoning Cain and Perry because they see Gingrich as extremely intelligent (he is), a man who is not so quick to attack other Republicans (he isn't), and a man who actually offers specific solutions to specific problems (he does).

I don't know if Gingrich will be "the last man standing" because I do not know if there is enough time left to stand out (some states are pushing their primaries and caucuses ever earlier on the calendar) or if he has enough money to succeed.

I do know he has the intellect, leadership ability, and solutions we need. But in today's fast-moving world, I'm not sure that is enough. Too bad.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

On HuffPost/AOL I found a story about a new book entitled "Chicks With Guns", a picture book of tons of women sporting their firearms. I thought it was really cool. But apparently, some elitists in their ivory towers do not agree. One stated that it flies in the face of "our vision of the maternal instinct".

WHOSE vision, dare I ask? Certainly not mine. Elitist, anti-gun nuts may think it is unseemly or unsettling to see Chicks With Guns, because their concept of the maternal instinct is warped (kind of like their shock and repulsion at discovering a woman who is a conservative, or pro-life). There is no stronger maternal instinct than to protect your children and family. And in the real world, that means being prepared to use deadly force. Just try using a make-up brush to inflict deadly force and let me know how that works for ya!

My mother owned guns, and was proficient in their use. So, too, my wife, who had been in the army, and was raised in rural Maine in a time when people who did not hunt did not eat. And both my daughters are comfortable with their own rifles and handguns. They are also proficient in archery, and one is very good at knife throwing. The other is a black belt in karate.

When the "maternal instinct" requires they stand between their family and any threat, they are well prepared. They will survive.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Huffington Post/AOL ran a story today that obviously has only one point - to try and make people think less of all Republicans because of what one does.

It seems a Republican New Jersey man named Myers is accused (not proved) of paying for sex with a male escort. Now, it is not enough that it is only an accusation. But it appears Myers at one time ran for a Congressional seat. But he lost.

So, what we have is a Republican who was never a Congressman and who is accused of some sexual event that is not even illegal. In fact, it is a non-story. The only reason HuffPost runs it on page one (as if it had significance) is because the guy happens to be a Republican so they can run a headline that says "GOP CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE ACCUSED...".

Of course, they usually ignore REAL stories of Democrat politicians (who actually succeeded in getting into office) who commit far worse transgressions. They don't even run stories on "Fast & Furious" investigations, for example, or that Obama gave another half billion to an electric car company that immediately took the money and moved to Finland. Now Finland has a lot of new jobs, paid for with YOUR tax dollars. That, on top of the Solyndra scandal of another half-billion.

But I digress. I find it newsworthy that HuffPost/AOL is anything but a source of legitimate news.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

From the news ---"On Wednesday, Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker, a member of the coalition Mayors Against Illegal Guns, released a video calling the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which would require states that allow concealed carrying of guns to recognize each other's permits, an "insane" policy that puts civilians and police officers "at risk."

"We cannot have a situation where Congress passes a law and the next thing you know is people are showing up in your community with hidden weapons that you, your state legislature, your mayors don't want to have happen," he said."

So, let me try to understand...

If both New Hampshire and Arizona have laws that allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons. Mayor Booker says that "cops and civilians would be at risk" if each state recognized the others' permit.

Mr. Booker, just HOW do you figure that? If I live in NH and I have a permit, and I go to Arizona, how am I more of a threat simply because I'm in another state?

Allowing states to recognize each others permits does not in any way create a greater hazard - if I am not a threat in NH, I'm not a threat in AZ.

As for "showing up in your community with hidden weapons that you, your state legislature don't want to have happen", well, that is not even part of the issue. If YOUR state does not have a concealed carry law, then your state is not even subject to reciprocity - you don't have to recognize ANY permit. The proposed bill only says states that HAVE concealed carry laws will accept each others' permits. So, once again liberals are clouding the issue with Bullcrap, using fear mongering to try and win their point. Typical liberal dishonesty.
These liberals are so nuts! They use completely bogus arguments to try and win their point.

As for stricter gun laws, EVERY city, every state and every nation that passed strict anti-gun laws have suffered MORE violent crime, not less. I suggest that is because criminals do not obey gun laws, and see "no gun" areas as "easy pickings". For example, Norway, with strict gun laws had approximately 500 murders last year while America had 10,500. But Norway's population is only 4.9 million, while ours is 320 million. Therefore, Norway's murder rate per capita is 3 times higher than in America.

Norway - one murder for every 9800 people. America - one muder for every 30,500 people.

This story may or may not be based on a true story. But it matters not. What matters is the truth of how you feel after reading it, and the truth that lies in the moral of the story. And one last truth - if you remember this story, and let it guide you, your own life will be much richer for it.
______

"Good morning", said a woman as she walked up to the man sitting on ground.

The man slowly looked up.

This was a woman clearly accustomed to the finer things of life. Her coat was new.. She looked like she had never missed a meal in her life.

His first thought was that she wanted to make fun of him, like so many others had done before.. "Leave me alone," he growled....

To his amazement, the woman continued standing.

She was smiling -- her even white teeth displayed in dazzling rows. "Are you hungry?" she asked.

"No," he answered sarcastically. "I've just come from dining with the president. Now go away."

The woman's smile became even broader. Suddenly the man felt a gentle hand under his arm.

"What are you doing, lady?" the man asked angrily. "I said to leave me alone.

Just then a policeman came up. "Is there any problem, ma'am?" he asked..

"No problem here, officer," the woman answered. "I'm just trying to get this man to his feet. Will you help me?"

The officer scratched his head. "That's old Jack. He's been a fixture around here for a couple of years. What do you want with him?"

"See that cafeteria over there?" she asked. "I'm going to get him something to eat and get him out of the cold for awhile."

"Are you crazy, lady?" the homeless man resisted. "I don't want to go in there!" Then he felt strong hands grab his other arm and lift him up. "Let me go, officer. I didn't do anything."

" This is a good deal for you, Jack" the officer answered. "Don't blow it.."

Finally, and with some difficulty, the woman and the police officer got Jack into the cafeteria and sat him at a table in a remote corner. It was the middle of the morning, so most of the breakfast crowd had already left and the lunch bunch had not yet arrived....

The manager strode across the cafeteria and stood by his table. "What's going on here, officer?" he asked.

"This lady brought this man in here to be fed," the policeman answered.

"Not in here!" the manager replied angrily. "Having a person like that here is bad for business.."

Old Jack smiled a toothless grin. "See, lady. I told you so. Now if you'll let me go. I didn't want to come here in the first place."

The woman turned to the cafeteria manager and smiled....... "Sir, are you familiar with Eddy and Associates, the banking firm down the street?"

"Of course I am," the manager answered impatiently. "They hold their weekly meetings in one of my banquet rooms."

"And do you make a godly amount of money providing food at these weekly meetings?"

"What business is that of yours?"

I, sir, am Penelope Eddy, president and CEO of the company."

"Oh."

The woman smiled again. "I thought that might make a difference.." She glanced at the cop who was busy stifling a giggle. "Would you like to join us in a cup of coffee and a meal, officer?"

"No thanks, ma'am," the officer replied. "I'm on duty."

"Then, perhaps, a cup of coffee to go?"

"Yes, maam. That would be very nice."

The cafeteria manager turned on his heel, "I'll get your coffee for you right away, officer."

The officer watched him walk away. "You certainly put him in his place," he said.

"That was not my intent. Believe it or not, I have a reason for all this."

She sat down at the table across from her amazed dinner guest. She stared at him intently.. "Jack, do you remember me?"

Old Jack searched her face with his old, rheumy eyes. "I think so -- I mean you do look familiar."

"I'm a little older perhaps," she said. "Maybe I've even filled out more than in my younger days when you worked here, and I came through that very door, cold and hungry."

"Ma'am?" the officer said questioningly. He couldn't believe that such a magnificently turned out woman could ever have been hungry.

"I was just out of college," the woman began. "I had come to the city looking for a job, but I couldn't find anything. Finally I was down to my last few cents and had been kicked out of my apartment. I walked the streets for days. It was February and I was cold and nearly starving. I saw this place and walked in on the off chance that I could get something to eat."

Jack lit up with a smile. "Now I remember," he said.. "I was behind the serving counter. You came up and asked me if you could work for something to eat. I said that it was against company policy."

"I know," the woman continued. "Then you made me the biggest roast beef sandwich that I had ever seen, gave me a cup of coffee, and told me to go over to a corner table and enjoy it. I was afraid that you would get into trouble... Then, when I looked over and saw you put the price of my food in the cash register, I knew then that everything would be all right."

"So you started your own business?" Old Jack said.

"I got a job that very afternoon. I worked my way up. Eventually I started my own business that, with the help of God, prospered." She opened her purse and pulled out a business card.. "When you are finished here, I want you to pay a visit to a Mr. Lyons...He's the personnel director of my company. I'll go talk to him now and I'm certain he'll find something for you to do around the office." She smiled. "I think he might even find the funds to give you a little advance so that you can buy some clothes and get a place to live until you get on your feet... If you ever need anything, my door is always opened to you."

There were tears in the old man's eyes. "How can I ever thank you?" he said.\

Sunday, October 16, 2011

A liberal elementary school principal in Massachusetts has taken it upon herself to ban the fall holidays - Halloween, Columbus Day and Thanksgiving - because she says those hoklidays could offend some people.

This represents two of the major problems with liberals:

1) They have a need to Lord it over others, and control them and
2) They believe anything that could offend some person should be banned (PC run amok)

Well, to this principal I say this --- YOU offend ME, so I believe YOU should be banned.

Look, folks, everything on this planet could offend someone. That does not give ANYONE a right to "ban" something. For example, liberals tend to offend me. The ACLU offends me. Bankers offend me. The Occupy Wall Street mobs offend me. Does that mean they should be banned? Of course not (though the thought does intrigue me).

It is time for the "nanny state, I know best" liberals to get off their high horses and stop trying to control everyone else, and stop trying to force them to comply with the liberal view of the world. They do NOT know best, and most folks do not want nor need to be controlled by a bunch of self-righteous, arrogant asses like that principal.

Early this morning I caught an interview with an author who says that fewer women are chosing marriage because the pool of "Good Men" is shrinking. And I got to thinking about why that is.

Here are some of my thoughts on "why".

Since the 1960's, our society has been in full assault mode on masculinity. And I'm not just talking about Gloria Steinem and her feminist movement. Although a factor, it goes much deeper.

Our society has actively sought to make men more effeminate. We took away their cowboy toys and gave them dolls, to be "gender neutral". We stopped them from "dangerous" physical games at school, such as "King of the Hill", in order to "protect" them. Many do not realize that such games teach boys to become men.

We told kids that it was OK for men to carry a handbag (erroneously called a "man bag"). We taught them to cry, to whine, and to "be in touch with their feelings and feminine side".

I do not have a feminine side. I do not carry a bag - not even a fanny pack. And I have not cried since I was 6. I still play with guns, and I still play "King of the Hill" in the working world.

We as a society have cultivated and embraced the whiny Chris Matthews' type, the wimpy effeminate types, the loser welfare types who forever have their hand out, and even gays. Yes, gays. Many of our children are actually being taught to be gay. I have seen it first-hand in the local school. If I were a woman, I would not want any of those morons, either.

John Wayne never had a problem attracting women. Nor Jimmy Stewart, nor John F Kennedy. Real men have no problem catching the eye of the gentler sex. But when men become the gentler sex, don't expect women to fall all over themselves trying to latch onto one.

We need to reboot. Let kids rough-house and play hard. Get them away from the gadgets and out into the world, to play in the dirt. Stop giving them dolls and man-bags. Teach them that it's good to be strong, tough, resilient. Teach boys to become men, and girls to become women. But this stupid "unisex" thing is wrong. We were NOT born "gender neutral", and nature abhors it.

Friday, October 14, 2011

George Stephanopolis suggested the "Occupy Wall Street" mob is "the liberal version of the Tea Party".

I fully and whole-heartedly agree!

The Tea Party is neat and clean, friendly, do not break the laws of this nation and are focused on simple American principles of small government, low taxes and person liberty.

The Occupy Wall Streeter's are filthy, leave a mess wherever they go, break laws, infringe the rights of others and are not focused on anything except a desire to bring down capitalism because losers do not fare well under capitalism. Go figure.

Yeah, George, they ARE the "liberal version of the Tea Party". That's just who the liberals are.

Or did you not see the protester who dropped his pants and defacated on a police car? Or the 27 tons of trash and garbage strewn all over? Or did you forget about all the arrests?

Frankly, if I were a liberal (but for the grace of God) I would in no way want to EVER be associated with such a mob of useless anarchists and socialists. But go ahead, Georgie - tell the world that "filthy, law breaking anarchists" are who the liberals are, while conservative Tea Partiers are clean, organized and law-abiding.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

The Obama administration awarded $1.28 BILLION to another solar company (different from the $538,000,00 given to the bankrupt Solyndra). The company in question has 15 employees affected, whose joibs were "saved". The company is now on the verge of bankruptcy.

My question is simple - are taxpayer so worthless in the eyes of the administration that our government wastes billions on so few jobs? Do the math - each one of those 15 jobs cost us over $85 million dollars - EACH.

Gee, I sure wish I had a job that paid $85,000,000.

Meanwhile, the Democrats cry and whine that too many people are too rich on the backs of us "little people". Now we know why.

Everyone knows about "Fast & Furious" (except, aparrently, Eric Holder, whose job it was to know about it). And everyone has been told it was an attempt to "trace" how guns get to cartels, and bust everyone involved. And it did not work because SURVEILLANCE WAS CUT OFF.

And that last statement is crucial - WHY was it cut off?

Let's take a look at my whacky theory on all of this.

Many of the top officials in the DOJ were appointed by Obama and all have professed a desire for stricter gun controls in the U.S. I strongly suspect these officials had a deeper purpose behind " Fast & Furious". I suspect surveillance was cut off for the express purpose of letting all those guns "walk". It is a given that the guns would end up in Mexico, in crimal hands, and used in crimes. The guns would then be traced back to the U.S. and great pressure would be put on the U.S. to pass and enforce stricter guns laws. And We, The People< would thereby be duped into accepting it simply because our "lax" gun laws have created an international incident and are contributing to all the murders by cartels in Mexico. The Obama administration, supported by Mexican officials would blame America for all the violence on the border. And gun control would be the result.

But let's take it one step further...

Holder told us the other day that they busted a bunch who intended to hire a Mexican drug cartel dude to assassinate the Saudi ambassador. The DOJ had been aware of this plot "for months" while they "investigated". Apparently, this plot was hatched at the same time that the guns were allowed to walk. And as soon as Holder gets a subpoena over Fast & Furious, the DOJ suddenly arrests those would-be assassins.

Now I am not normally a conspiracy theorist, but this just sounds too convenient. What if the anti-gun DOJ officials - headed by Holder - had helped create the Saudi assassination plot along with Fast & Furious? What if the intent was for the assassins to use weapons from Fast & Furious?

What I can tell you for certain is, if that had happened, we could kiss the Second Amendment good-bye once and for all. American citizens would no longer be able to own guns. American guns, bought from American dealers by Americans were provided to Mexican cartel criminals who used those guns to kill a Saudi ambassador on our soil. Talk about an international incident.

Here's an idea - if you have not yet red "The Overton Window" by Glenn Beck, you may want to do so. While it is fiction (and incredibly good fiction, a real thriller), it is almost prophetic - this "Fast & Furious" deal, along with the assassination plot is nothing short of Deja Vu.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Yesterday, Chris Christi endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nod. But why, when there are more conservative candidates?

I think the reason is clear, particularly after Christi says he would consider being vice president. So here it is...

Christi wants to be president, but not yet. He said as much. Maybe next time. He also figures Romney will be the nominee. By endorsing Romney, maybe Romney will make him VP. That way, when Romney's time is up, Christi won't even have to fight hard or raise a lot of cash in order to become the next Republican nomineee - a VP is almost a shoo-in.

And there you have it. Christi endorsed Romney because Christi want to be president the next time around, and wants to avoid the usual hard-ball campaigning to become the nominee.

Simple.

Except for one little thing - Romney may not get the Republican nomination. In which case the VP might well be Rubio or Jeb Bush, who would then go on to beat out Christi next time around because THAT person would be the shoo-in.

I've been listening to dozens of interviews of folks in the OWS crowd, and there seems to be a recurring theme. But rather than just state it, let's look at their "issue" in practice...

These "useful idiots", as Soros calls them, give their money to Apple and Microsoft for all the great new toys those companies create and sell. These people WANT those toys. They want them badly enough to pay the bucks to people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates.

Jobs and Gates get rich this way - because the people WILLINGLY traded their money for the toys. But now that their money is gone, and they are broke, they see Bill Gates wallowing in money and decide he should give their money back.

So, here it is - they want all the great things produced by capitalism, but once they have blown all their money they want the money back. In other words, they want EVERYTHING for free. Freeloaders.

Here's an idea for the OWS morons --- if you think the wealthy have too much money, DON'T GIVE THEM ANY MORE. STOP buying the iPads, Iphones, Blackberries and computers. Stop using Facebook and Twitter, making them rich. Stop buying the cars, making Ford wealthy.

The rich are not rich because they screwed you. They are rich because they produced something YOU WANTED, and YOU WILLINGLY TRADED YOUR DOLLARS FOR.

Sure, there are corrupt people. And there are those who get rich without providing anything of value. But 98% of the wealthy people got that way honestly. Bill Gates did not cheat you. Steve Jobs did not screw you over. And Ford did not pick your pocket, or mug you.

If you really believe that the rich have too much of the wealth, then YOU stop giving them yours. Stop eating in restaurants. Stop going to the movies. Don't buy any more "toys".

But as long as you have a cellphone glued to your ear, and an iPad in your pack, and you drink latte at Starbucks, I don't want to hear how you feel "cheated" by the wealthy.

The ONLY real difference between the OWS bunch and the wealthy is this --- the wealthy want money. The OWS crowd wants "things". And the OWS crowd trades their money for the things offered by the wealthy.

And this difference --- the wealthy are content with the money. The OWS mob are not content with just having the "stuff" - they want the money, too.

As far as I am concerned, OWS does not stand for Occupy Wall Street. It stands for Outrageous, Worthless Slobs.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

So here is the liberal HuffPost/AOL take on the Democrat controlled senate shooting down Obama's "jobs" bill:

"WASHINGTON — United against Barack Obama, Senate Republicans voted Tuesday night to kill the jobs package the president had spent weeks campaigning for across the country, a stinging loss at the hands of lawmakers opposed to stimulus-style spending and a tax increase on the very wealthy."

What makes that stupid (a trademark of Huffington Post) is that the ONLY way the bill could "die" is if Democrats vote against it, because they are the majority. Since the bill died in the senate, that means several Democrats voted against it - THEY killed it. Of the 100 senators, 57 are Democrats, yet a half dozen voted against it, and another - Harry Reid, himself - changed his vote to "nay".

Yes, Republicans were opposed to the bill - and correctly so. But they did not kill it. The Democrats did that all by themselves.

That is pure liberal BS and they know it. The Democrats control the majority in the senate, and thanks to Harry Reid's stupidity, it only requires a simple majority to pass a bill. That means if the bill does not pass, it is because several DEMOCRATS voted against it.

As long as the Democrats control the Senate, any bill that passes or dies in the senate is thanks to the Democrats.

Lord, I sure wish the liberal, socialist-loving media would come back into the fold of "objective media" where they belong.

Monday, October 10, 2011

Today's headline at AOL: "House Bill Would Authorize Czar To Watch Islamist Extremists But Not Other Domestic Terrorists "

Let's see - the liberals are not opposed to watching Islamist extremists so long as we also watch other domestic terrorists. But that's where the problem lies...

Islamic extremists are generally easy to find - they go to mosques, they rant on the internet and they associate with other known Islamic extremists. And it is often a group thing, of sorts. Other domestic terrorists, however, are impossible to watch because, to date, they have been "lone wolves" belonging to no particular group. That's why it was so hard to find the Unabomber even AFTER all his bombings, and why no one knew about Timothy McVeigh until AFTER the fed building was blown up.

So, you see, HuffPost/AOL, while it is possible to watch Islamist extremists, it generally is not possible to watch "other" domestic terrorists. Unless, of course, you would like to tell us who they are.

And, NO, they are not the Tea Party, or the GOP. In fact, they aren't even the militia groups, as they, so far, have not committed any terrorist acts.

Be glad to watch those domestic terrorists for ya, but ya gotta tell us who they are, first...

Sunday, October 9, 2011

The Occupy Wal Street mob compares themselves with the protesters in Egypt during the "Arab Spring." In fact, one of the leaders of the Egyptian uprising was a speaker for the OWS gang. Fine. But they also say they are like the Tea Party.

Not so much...

Reported today, "Massive clashes that drew in Christians angry over a recent church attack, Muslims, and Egyptian security forces raged over a large section of downtown Cairo Sunday night, leaving at least 19 people dead and more than 150 injured". That, my friends, is the result of the Egyptian "Arab Spring". You would never see anything like that from the Tea Party.

But you say, "Hey, you don't see that with the OWS crowd, either."

Well, they are close. They have blocked a busy bridge and busy roadways. They have closed public parks. And they stormed the Air & Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institute intent on doing damage to the exhibits.

That sounds a LOT like the Egyptian riots, and NOTHING like the Tea Party events.

Pelosi says the OWS are not "mobs", but the definition fits them to a "T". (mob n. A large disorderly crowd or throng, especially one bent on riotous or destructive action [such as we saw at the Air & Space Museum or the GW Bridge]).

And if Pelosi and other liberals wants to go on record as being supportive of OWS, then they must accept the responsibility that comes with the many arrests, bad behavior, filth and the violence.

TP - no "special interest" funding
OWS - some funding by George Soros and labor unions

I could go on, of course. But any sane person (I guess this excludes Pelosi and other supporters) can easily see that there is NO comparison between the two groups. One is a peaceful protest. The other is an unruly, disorganized mob.

There is one thing the two groups have in common - both are dissatisfied with the way our government runs things, and believe government is out of control. The big difference there is that the TP believes there is too much government that is too costly, and the OWS believes there is not enough government and cost ids no object.

Of course, the reason they feel cost is no object is because the OWS group aren't paying the tab. It's easy to choose the most expensive stuff on the menu when you aren't the one paying the bill. Most pay zero taxes, which is precisely why they want the "wealthy" to pay more taxes.

The OWS bunch can be compared to another protest group, however, with alarming similarities - they are nearly identical to the radical, unruly, violent mobs of the "Arab Spring". And near as I can tell, none of those have turned out well - they are simply "useful idiots" that allow a different group of tyrants to take charge. Exchanging the enemy you know for an enemy you do not know.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

On Saturday, Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 131, the second bill of the two-part California Dream Act, allowing undocumented immigrant students to apply for state-funded financial aid for college.

First, they are not "undocumented immigrants" - they are illegal immigrants, by law. Federal law. But now, thanks to the socialist Jerry Brown, who has no use for the Constitution and no love for America is burdening taxpayers with funding college for people who aren't even legally allowed to be here. Taxpayer funds. YOUR kid can't get into UCLA because some illegal immigrant is getting paid to take that spot in the classroom.

So now we have a state that makes it a POINT to bring more illegals in over the border - INVITES them, and then PAYS them to be here. Of course, California is already bankrupt because they give way too much to far too many, but Hell, that does not stop Brown from squeezing the taxpayer even more. It matters not how much you hurt and punish honest citizens with a birthright to be here, as long as you coddle lawbreakers who have no right at all to be here.

Look, I am not "mean" because I want to "deprive" hapless Mexicans who have no resprect for our laws. I am sympathetic to the fact that Mexico cannot provide what we provide. I understand the humanity angle. But not at the expense of those of us who BELONG here.

A college can hold just so many students. Every illegal who takes up a space is depriving an American student from using those educational resources. And every dollar we give to illegals is another dollar we have to take away from some American working stiff trying to get by.

Liberals and socialists like Jerry Brown don't care about how Americans are affected, or what it costs us. They only care about some warped sense of "social justice" that is anti-American and anti-Christian at its core.

It is the government's role to protect our equal rights. It is not the role of government to provide equal things. Things must be earned, by following the rules (and laws), and earning them by the sweat of your brow.

If ANYONE should get a free ride, it certainly is not those who don't even belong here. Only when every American child has the best education should we then open up any "extra" space in the classrooms to others. But as long as even ONE American child cannot afford college, I don't want to see any illegal immigrant taking up space in the classrooms at taxpayer expense. Why should an illegal immigrant prosper at the expense of an American?

Friday, October 7, 2011

From AOL: "It's been dubbed the "21st century equivalent of the Black Death." In the U.K., it's the most common reason employees take long-term sick leave. It costs American companies $300 billion a year. In Japan, it's a fatal epidemic."

The story goes on to accuse STRESS. But "they" are wrong.

The problem is not, and never has been stress. The problem is the DISTRESS that is caused by ignoring stress.

Stress is to the human body as a smoke alarm is to a fire-prone tenement in the Bronx. It is nothing more than a warning. When we fail to heed the warning and take the necessary steps to eliminate the problem, the stress becomes distress. And THAT is what harms us.

The cure? Listen to the warnings, and take the steps necessary to eliminate that which is causing the warning - just like you would seek out and eliminate whatever is causing your smoke alarm to go off.

Stress only occurs when we find ourselves face-to-face with a situation for which we are not adequately or properly prepared. You then have three choices:

1) ignore the problem and hope it goes away (it won't)

2) learn whatever you have to learn to cope with the situation, or

3) take a 3 martini lunch

When stress comes, simply ask yourself what is it about the situation that you are not capable of handling. Then go out and learn whatever you must in order to BECOME capable.

EXAMPLE: Both Bob and Joe are up for promotion to supervisor. Bob has studied the job, has taken night classes on supervision and is prepared for the job. When he is promoted, there is no stress and he succeeds. Joe, on the other hand did not study the job, or take classes. When he gets promoted, he faces situations he is not prepared to deal with, and he feels stress. If he continues to ignore the warnings and does not learn what he must, the stress will become distress. And Joe will soon be replaced (causing even more distress, I'm sure).

The first line of defense against stress is to try and prepare in advance for situations that may arise. The second line of defense is to actively seek learning when a stressful situation does arise.

Of course, you could go for the martinis - but that will just add other stresses...

In reference to the socialist protests called "Occupy Wall Street", Nancy Pelosi said that they were "spontaneous and focused..."

Excuse me for pointing this out, Ms Pelosi, but it's not spontaneous if they plan it months in advance - these lazy troublemakers started advertising this months ago. As for "focused", several investigative reporters interviewed over 200 of the protesters, and asking them what they were protesting. For the first three weeks, there were over 200 different responses to that question. It was not until the unions got involved this week that anything began to come into "focus."

But then, we're talking about Ms Pelosi here. And that means the spin never stops, and usually spins out of control. In any case, she is always good for a laugh.

Yes, I said "lazy troublemakers". When asked if they had jobs, they said "no" (one, in fact, had QUIT his job to attend), and when asked if they would ACCEPT a job, they said "no". So, they are lazy, and only want to take away from those who are not, and live on the public teat. As for being "troublemakers" --- the Tea Party has had hundreds of gatherings without a single arrest. But these socialists have had over 200 arrests already, with more to come, I'm sure. They have attempted to close off a major bridge and major roads in an attempt to hurt the city and the innocent people in it - closing off the G.W Bridge does not hurt the "Wall Street Capitalists" - it hurts everyone trying to get to and from work.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

It has been tentatively reported that crime rates are down across the board. Assuming this is true, there are two schools of thought - that of the Huffington Post and its liberal followers, and mine. Obviously, the two schools of thought differ.

According to the Huffington Post/AOL crowd, "Obama may be responsible. Essentially, the argument is that Obama's election has created such collective inspiration that it has changed the thinking and the behavior of would-be criminals." Sounds a little ethereal if you ask me.

Now for my school of thought, which, as it happens, is based on known facts. Since Obama got elected, sales of guns and ammo have gone through the roof. In fact, it is nearly impossible to buy ammo in some areas as they just cannot make it fast enough. Now, since so many people are arming themselves - and are angry enough to be prepared to use them - criminals are having second thoughts about committing crimes, knowing it is likely they will be shot by their proposed victim.

Of course, feel free to believe whichever school of thought appeals to you, or develop your own. It could simply be that, since Obama has kept the nation broke, no one has anything left to steal.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

FREMONT, Neb. -- A 12 year old girl who wears a Rosary necklace was banned from wearing it by her school district after police told officials it's also being worn by gang members.

So, let me get this straight - if a criminal decides to wear a cross, the cross must be banned. If a criminal decides to have pierced ears, then pierced ears will be banned. And if someone else misuses the American flag, then that, too, would be banned. This is exactly the absurd, warped mentality of officials who ban the Rosary necklace from being worn by a religious person for no other reason than it is also worn by less desireable folks.

So, what does this have to do with voting and elections? Think about it - in NO case have conservative officials ever banned religious items. In NO case have conservatives ever taken away a Christmas tree or a Nativity display, or banned Silent Night from a school Christmas concert, or ban public Christmas decorations, as was done in certain liberal-run communities lately.

It is not conservatives who try to tell you how to live, what to eat and whether or not you can have salt on your food. It is not conservatives who try to dictate whether or not you can pass on having health insurance. And it is not conservatives who tell you that you cannot grow herbs because they look too much like weeds (as was the case in a liberal Colorado community). And it was not conservatives who fined a Georgia man for giving away his extra veggies from his garden to his neighbors, or closed down a child's lemonade stand. Or prevent Girl Scouts from selling cookies, or Boy Scouts from using a public area.

Yes, voting - and elections - matter. And we see proof of that every day, in every community. Not just national elections, but also state and even community elections.

Only you can decide whether or not you want others directing and controlling your every move (liberal nanny state), or whether you prefer to have the freedom to make the choices that are right for you. No matter which side of the street you are on, you need to get out and stand up for your beliefs by going to the voting booth and casting a ballot to protect YOUR interests. If you do not, you will end up at the mercy of SPECIAL interests that will make your life miserable.

Just one thing - regardless of actual issues, when you walk into that voting both, think about ONE thing - do you want to be free, or do you want to be a drone? If you answer that question honestly, and vote accordingly, you will automatically be voting for the issues that are right for you.

/Yes, voting to be free does have consequences. As a free person, you can win or you can lose. You can get rich, or go broke. You will starve if you refuse to work. Such are the possible outcomes of FREE CHOICE. By the same token, voting to be a nanny-state drone also has its consequences - the loss of freedom being the biggie. Maybe you won';t "lose" in the classic sense, but you will lose. You will lose the opportunity to win. You will lose the incentive to excel. You will lose self-esteem. You will lose individual rights in exchange for group rights.

You decide. But do so at the voting booth, because that is the only place it matters.